What do you think?
Rate this book
١٢ أطروحة حول تغيير العالم
إننا نبدأ من الصرخة، ليس من الكلمة. مواجَهين بالتشوه الذي أحدثته الرأسمالية في الحياة الإنسانية. صرخة حزن، صرخة رعب، صرخة غضب، صرخة رفض: «لا».
يجب أن يكون الفكر رافضًا كي يَصدُق مع الصرخة. نحن لا نريد أن نفهم العالم، بل أن ننفيه. الهدف من التنظير هو أن نصوغ مفهومًا رافضًا للعالم، ليس كشيء منفصل عن الممارسة، بل كلحظة من الممارسة، كجزء من الصراع لتغيير العالم، كي نجعله مكانًا ملائمًا لعيش البشر.
لكن كيف يمكننا، بعد كل ما حدث، أن نبدأ حتى في التفكير في تغيير العالم؟
*
"عمل عبقري في النظرية الماركسية، إلا أنه يقع بين النظرية الماركسية والشعر."
الأنثروبولوجي الأمريكي ديفيد جريبر
*
يفتح جون هولواي جدالا نظريًا حول تغيير العالم، عارضًا بعض المفاهيم الأساسية للماركسية في تطور للتقليد الماركسي النقدي التي يمثلها أدورنو وبلوخ ولوكاتش من بين منظرين آخرين، كما يؤصل التفكير في مفهوم ماركس عن التصنيمية وطريقة تحول الفعل إلى كينونة.
يجب أن يكون الفكر رافضًا كي يَصدُق مع الصرخة. نحن لا نريد أن نفهم العالم، بل أن ننفيه. الهدف من التنظير هو أن نصوغ مفهومًا رافضًا للعالم، ليس كشيء منفصل عن الممارسة، بل كلحظة من الممارسة، كجزء من الصراع لتغيير العالم، كي نجعله مكانًا ملائمًا لعيش البشر.
لكن كيف يمكننا، بعد كل ما حدث، أن نبدأ حتى في التفكير في تغيير العالم؟
*
"عمل عبقري في النظرية الماركسية، إلا أنه يقع بين النظرية الماركسية والشعر."
الأنثروبولوجي الأمريكي ديفيد جريبر
*
يفتح جون هولواي جدالا نظريًا حول تغيير العالم، عارضًا بعض المفاهيم الأساسية للماركسية في تطور للتقليد الماركسي النقدي التي يمثلها أدورنو وبلوخ ولوكاتش من بين منظرين آخرين، كما يؤصل التفكير في مفهوم ماركس عن التصنيمية وطريقة تحول الفعل إلى كينونة.
359 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
45 people are currently reading
1,369 people want to read
About the author
John Holloway
27books72followersLibrarian Note:
There is more than one author in the ŷ database with this name.
Sociologist, philosopher and lawyer by profession. Holloway is closely associated with Open or Autonomous Marxism and anti-globalisation movements such as the Zapatistas.
His 2002 book, Change the World Without Taking Power, has been the subject of much debate and brought him to a wider audience.
There is more than one author in the ŷ database with this name.
Sociologist, philosopher and lawyer by profession. Holloway is closely associated with Open or Autonomous Marxism and anti-globalisation movements such as the Zapatistas.
His 2002 book, Change the World Without Taking Power, has been the subject of much debate and brought him to a wider audience.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
April 20, 2013
John Holloway's book for me has joined Silvia Federici's "Caliban and the Witch" and Gabor Mate's "In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts" as the three most ideologically clarifying books i've yet encountered. I led a reading group on this book, and I think it impacted all of us. It's a work of philosophy, for sure, so at times it can be hard to follow (the chapters on "fetishisation" especially). But in essence, Holloway is searching for a theory of social change, and in dissecting the Leninist/state socialist approach, he realizes he must propose an alternative. Before he can do that, he first needs to probe into the deepest questions that most of us try to ignore, about the nature of humanity, the nature of work, capitalism, organization, resistance, etc. In the end, he doesn't come up with any grand new strategy for changing the world, but in asking the right, deep questions, he clears away the cobwebs of revolutionary socialism and gives us tools for creating new strategies in the future. It's a thought-experiment in the true nature and meaning of the world, and if you approach it from that perspective, there's a tremendous amount to be gained.
January 13, 2019
In terms of literary style, Holloway infuses a 'negative dialectic' method with emotional, nearly poetic language. As I understand it, a negative dialectic method basically aims to strengthen the critique of social relations that fetishize capitalism. He takes a creative risk by using the metaphor of "the scream" to express the anguish of contemporary capitalism. It's rare to find this kind of emotional expressiveness in academic prose, let alone Marxist writing, and I found the style kind of refreshing.
In terms of substance, however, I was less satisfied. Holloway's main argument is that because the state is inextricably linked to capitalism, any anti-capitalist revolutionary movement that is premised on seizing state power is bound to replicate the same systems of capitalist power it sought to eliminate. I felt there was an imbalance between Holloway's deep critique of revolutionary struggles through all forms of the state and the absence of proposals he offers for alternatives or pathways toward something better. From my perspective, totally avoiding engagement with any state forms is unfeasible for anti-capitalist groups that might, for instance, be seeking to prevent deportation for undocumented workers, access to insurance for injured workers, recognition of human rights violations, and so on. I found more usefulness in Holloway's conceding that, given the near-impossibility of completely avoiding engagement with the state, “the important, thing, perhaps, is not to paint over the contradictions� (235).
The book is primarily theoretical, and beyond some passing references to the Zapatista movement, it doesn't draw much on empirical data. Overall, I think Holloway's theoretical argument would have been stronger and more nuanced if it was moored in a careful analysis of people's actually-existing struggles.
In terms of substance, however, I was less satisfied. Holloway's main argument is that because the state is inextricably linked to capitalism, any anti-capitalist revolutionary movement that is premised on seizing state power is bound to replicate the same systems of capitalist power it sought to eliminate. I felt there was an imbalance between Holloway's deep critique of revolutionary struggles through all forms of the state and the absence of proposals he offers for alternatives or pathways toward something better. From my perspective, totally avoiding engagement with any state forms is unfeasible for anti-capitalist groups that might, for instance, be seeking to prevent deportation for undocumented workers, access to insurance for injured workers, recognition of human rights violations, and so on. I found more usefulness in Holloway's conceding that, given the near-impossibility of completely avoiding engagement with the state, “the important, thing, perhaps, is not to paint over the contradictions� (235).
The book is primarily theoretical, and beyond some passing references to the Zapatista movement, it doesn't draw much on empirical data. Overall, I think Holloway's theoretical argument would have been stronger and more nuanced if it was moored in a careful analysis of people's actually-existing struggles.
November 23, 2008
Although the paperback art (featured on this page) is hardly betrays it, this book is a powerful contribution to the discussion of power and social change. Although certainly not removed from the Marxist intellectual lineage, Holloway allows for more time with the more difficult concepts and provides an extensive bibliography to orient the reader towards the origin of his own academic frameworks. If you have a basic understanding of historical /dialectical materialism, class consciousness, and historical actor, you'll be able to certainly work through the text. A deeper knowledge of Adorno&Horkheimer's negative dialectics, the concept of Totality, and various Marxist contemporaries (Gramsci, etc.) will lend itself to less re-reading. The charges of jargon and opacity by other reviewers are certainly not unfounded, however, it has never appeared to me that Holloway has opted to use an intellectually inaccessible description when a simple explanations would suffice and the clarity granted to the reader is well worth opening up a book or two for further comprehension.
With all of this said, very few books have confronted my preconceptions about a topic so completely. In all honesty, this book changed my life. The conceptual frameworks I've drawn from the text has provided for a more thorough examination of questions of revolution, structure, capitalism, and violence. I strongly recommends this book to anyone who interested in social change, by reform or revolt.
(If you have any questions while reading this text or would just like to speak with someone who has also read the book, feel free to message me!)
With all of this said, very few books have confronted my preconceptions about a topic so completely. In all honesty, this book changed my life. The conceptual frameworks I've drawn from the text has provided for a more thorough examination of questions of revolution, structure, capitalism, and violence. I strongly recommends this book to anyone who interested in social change, by reform or revolt.
(If you have any questions while reading this text or would just like to speak with someone who has also read the book, feel free to message me!)
November 7, 2019
Not a bad book at all, but just about everything in it was said more concisely in one or another of the essays in We Are the Crisis of Capital. And the text could easily be shortened -- to its great benefit -- by about two-thirds by heavily abridging all the rambling, purple prose and getting to the point.
August 26, 2018
I have conflicting feelings about this book. The first few chapters were really hard for me to get through, mainly because of how theoretical the writing is, and I struggled to understand the ideas being developed since I couldn’t relate the theory to reality.
I enjoyed the later chapters a lot more when the arguments got a bit more practical and explicitly linked to reality and not just a theoretical framework. It was still confusing at times to someone not very used to these kinds of theoretical texts and who isn’t very well-versed in Marxism to begin with, but I understood enough to make me continue reading. Or maybe I didn’t actually understand what the book is ”supposed to� say, who knows, but it still gave me some interesting insights and thoughts that made me enjoy reading it.
There’s a lot that I like about this book, like the idea that there is no such thing as a healthy individual mind when capitalist society itself, which we all live in, is sick and that we are all shaped by that sickness but that we also struggle against it.
I like the core idea of the book, that we should look for ways of changing the world that doesn’t involve seizing power because power is power and will always corrupt those who have it. I like the idea of anti-power, of having a society not based on value and capitalistic greed but instead on humanity and the mutual respect of everyone’s dignity. I like the arguments against elite-run revolution, because I’ve always struggled with the idea of an elite group (especially when it’s framed as intellectuals saving the uneducated) leading the revolution of the masses. To me it seems that the only possible outcome is the reproducing of the oppressive system that we wanted to replace, so it was nice seeing those thoughts reflected in this book.
What I struggle with most, aside from the parts I found difficult to understand, is the lack of an answer to the question of how society CAN be changed. The ways in which we can NOT change it is thoroughly discussed, but when it comes to an answer the only one given is ”there is no answer�. While I appreciate that conclusion in the sense that it’s realistic and because I’ve always struggled with the idea that there’s a straightforward answer to something so complex as dismantling capitalism (like ”just take state control and everything will be great!�), I also dislike it since it left me feeling unsatisfied and almost defeated because change seems so impossible. I almost prefer a clear-cut answer that has a lot of issues to not having any idea of what can be done.
In conclusion: it’s an interesting read that didn’t change my life but raised some interesting questions that I will carry with me, even though the lack of answers frustrated me.
I enjoyed the later chapters a lot more when the arguments got a bit more practical and explicitly linked to reality and not just a theoretical framework. It was still confusing at times to someone not very used to these kinds of theoretical texts and who isn’t very well-versed in Marxism to begin with, but I understood enough to make me continue reading. Or maybe I didn’t actually understand what the book is ”supposed to� say, who knows, but it still gave me some interesting insights and thoughts that made me enjoy reading it.
There’s a lot that I like about this book, like the idea that there is no such thing as a healthy individual mind when capitalist society itself, which we all live in, is sick and that we are all shaped by that sickness but that we also struggle against it.
I like the core idea of the book, that we should look for ways of changing the world that doesn’t involve seizing power because power is power and will always corrupt those who have it. I like the idea of anti-power, of having a society not based on value and capitalistic greed but instead on humanity and the mutual respect of everyone’s dignity. I like the arguments against elite-run revolution, because I’ve always struggled with the idea of an elite group (especially when it’s framed as intellectuals saving the uneducated) leading the revolution of the masses. To me it seems that the only possible outcome is the reproducing of the oppressive system that we wanted to replace, so it was nice seeing those thoughts reflected in this book.
What I struggle with most, aside from the parts I found difficult to understand, is the lack of an answer to the question of how society CAN be changed. The ways in which we can NOT change it is thoroughly discussed, but when it comes to an answer the only one given is ”there is no answer�. While I appreciate that conclusion in the sense that it’s realistic and because I’ve always struggled with the idea that there’s a straightforward answer to something so complex as dismantling capitalism (like ”just take state control and everything will be great!�), I also dislike it since it left me feeling unsatisfied and almost defeated because change seems so impossible. I almost prefer a clear-cut answer that has a lot of issues to not having any idea of what can be done.
In conclusion: it’s an interesting read that didn’t change my life but raised some interesting questions that I will carry with me, even though the lack of answers frustrated me.
June 5, 2019
Cam tristă carte, dar și inspiratoare. Bine scrisă și persuasivă, chiar dacă pe alocuri prea teoretică pentru teza pe care o susține (numai din cînd în cînd apar niște zapatiști ca exemplu). Văd cum limbajul poetic și structura discursului ar putea părea pretențioase și enervante, dar mie mi-a plăcut mai ales asta. My kind of theory. #protestpermanent
"This implies a non-instrumental concept of revolution. The orthodox Marxist tradition, most clearly the Leninist tradition, conceives of revolution instrumentally, as a means to an end. The problem with this approach is that it subordinates the infinite richness of struggle, which is important precisely because it is a struggle for infinite richness, to the single aim of taking power. In doing so, it inevitably reproduces power-over (the subordination of the struggles to the Struggle) and ensures continuity rather than the rupture that is sought. Instrumentalism means engaging with capital on capital’s own terms, accepting that our own world can come into being only after the revolution. But capital’s terms are not simply a given, they are an active process of separating. (...) To struggle through the state is to become involved in the active process of defeating yourself.
How, then, do we prevent the process of fetishisation, the breaking of doing, the separating of doing and done? It is surely wrong to think in terms of a continuous process of organisation-building. Certainly there must be an accumulation of practices of oppositional self-organisation, but this should be thought of not as a linear accumulation, but as a cumulative breaking of linearity. Think of discontinuities rather than continuity, flashes of lightning which light up the sky and pierce the capitalist forms of social relations, showing them for what they are: a daily repeated and never predetermined struggle to break our doing and to break us, a daily repeated struggle to make the abnormal seem normal and the avoidable seem inevitable. Think of an anti-politics of events rather than a politics of organisation. Or better: think of organisation not in terms of being but in terms of doing. The events do not happen spontaneously. Like parties, they require work and preparation: here the work of dedicated ‘militants� is crucial. But the aim is not to reproduce and expand the caste of militants (the organisation) but to ‘blast open the continuum of history� (Benjamin 1973, p. 264). (...)
How then do we change the world without taking power? At the end of the book, as at the beginning, we do not know. The Leninists know, or used to know. We do not. Revolutionary change is more desperately urgent than ever, but we do not know any more what revolution means. Asked, we tend to cough and splutter and try to change the subject. In part, our not-knowing is the not-knowing of those who are historically lost: the knowing of the revolutionaries of the last century has been defeated. But it is more than that: our not knowing is also the not-knowing of those who understand that not-knowing is part of the revolutionary process. We have lost all certainty, but the openness of uncertainty is central to revolution. ‘Asking we walk�, say the Zapatistas. We ask not only because we do not know the way (we do not), but also because asking the way is part of the revolutionary process itself."
"This implies a non-instrumental concept of revolution. The orthodox Marxist tradition, most clearly the Leninist tradition, conceives of revolution instrumentally, as a means to an end. The problem with this approach is that it subordinates the infinite richness of struggle, which is important precisely because it is a struggle for infinite richness, to the single aim of taking power. In doing so, it inevitably reproduces power-over (the subordination of the struggles to the Struggle) and ensures continuity rather than the rupture that is sought. Instrumentalism means engaging with capital on capital’s own terms, accepting that our own world can come into being only after the revolution. But capital’s terms are not simply a given, they are an active process of separating. (...) To struggle through the state is to become involved in the active process of defeating yourself.
How, then, do we prevent the process of fetishisation, the breaking of doing, the separating of doing and done? It is surely wrong to think in terms of a continuous process of organisation-building. Certainly there must be an accumulation of practices of oppositional self-organisation, but this should be thought of not as a linear accumulation, but as a cumulative breaking of linearity. Think of discontinuities rather than continuity, flashes of lightning which light up the sky and pierce the capitalist forms of social relations, showing them for what they are: a daily repeated and never predetermined struggle to break our doing and to break us, a daily repeated struggle to make the abnormal seem normal and the avoidable seem inevitable. Think of an anti-politics of events rather than a politics of organisation. Or better: think of organisation not in terms of being but in terms of doing. The events do not happen spontaneously. Like parties, they require work and preparation: here the work of dedicated ‘militants� is crucial. But the aim is not to reproduce and expand the caste of militants (the organisation) but to ‘blast open the continuum of history� (Benjamin 1973, p. 264). (...)
How then do we change the world without taking power? At the end of the book, as at the beginning, we do not know. The Leninists know, or used to know. We do not. Revolutionary change is more desperately urgent than ever, but we do not know any more what revolution means. Asked, we tend to cough and splutter and try to change the subject. In part, our not-knowing is the not-knowing of those who are historically lost: the knowing of the revolutionaries of the last century has been defeated. But it is more than that: our not knowing is also the not-knowing of those who understand that not-knowing is part of the revolutionary process. We have lost all certainty, but the openness of uncertainty is central to revolution. ‘Asking we walk�, say the Zapatistas. We ask not only because we do not know the way (we do not), but also because asking the way is part of the revolutionary process itself."
August 20, 2024
Pour Holloway , la révolution est l’action du «faire maintenant et au delà» de la relation sociale du capitalisme. Elle est la négation de ce qui nous nient. Le refus de se plier à logique du capital. Elle est la voix des sans-voix, le cris des aliénés sans-visages contre le capital. Le refus de la puissance, du «pouvoir sur» , l’action quotidienne du «pouvoir de». La compréhension que le capital est en nous, que nous sommes le capital et qu’on ne peut le détruire en utilisant les fétiches réifiés de cette relation social construite qui est l’état, l’identité, l’argent, le travail , la marchandise, la valeur. Il faut faire la négation de ses processus de reproduction qui nous nient en tant qu’être humain : l’anti-étatisme, l’anti-marchandise , l’anti-identité, l’anti-travail,l’anti-argent, l’anti-valeur. Pour Holloway , la capitalisme est une abstraction totalitaire posé comme un processus constant de subordination de l’antagonisme entre ceux qui sont nié par le capital et ceux qui en profite. Une lutte constante entre le dualisme de l’objet et du sujet. Nous sommes la luttes des classes , la lutte contre la classification qui nous détermine et nous pétrifie. Nous sommes l’antagonisme entre le travail abstrait et le travail du faire concret. Nous sommes les subjectivités vivantes maître de notre propre processus historique, l’insubordination c’est nous. Super livre , je le recommande grandement.
June 16, 2022
much to think about:
"create a world of non-commodified relations, a world not ruled by money but shaped by love, companionship, comradeship and the direct confrontation with all the problems of living and dying"
"create a world of non-commodified relations, a world not ruled by money but shaped by love, companionship, comradeship and the direct confrontation with all the problems of living and dying"
October 12, 2024
Cute Irish Twink
December 9, 2021
Muy bonito al principio y muy complejo después, no es queja.
October 11, 2022
Mudar o mundo sem tomar o poder, de John Holloway é uma excelente polêmica, que consegue, com uma escrita instigante e acessível ao mesmo tempo em que intelectualmente rigorosa, passar pelas principais categorias do marxismo � mesmo quando alguma delas é retrabalhada sobre um nome diferente � e promover um debate provocador sobre a relação entre a exploração capitalista, organização política e o objetivo revolucionário, reavaliados à luz das principais contribuições intelectuais feitas pelas principais correntes teórico-políticas do pensamento anticapitalista (especialmente marxista, autonomista e pós-estruturalista).
Colocando como central a questão do rompimento do fluxo do fazer enquanto momento que estrutura a Բçã e o fetichismo, dando origem às estruturas de poder autonomizadas mediante a separação entre sujeito e objeto, o autor busca demonstrar como o trabalho reproduz tanto a estrutura positiva do fazer alienado separando o poder-fazer do poder sobre, quanto engendra no seio do fazer as formas de negatividade que possibilitam a negação da formas do Capital. Assim, privilegiando o momento da luta, o autor promove a crítica tanto da concepção do Capital enquanto sujeito, quanto das formas de atuação dentro de suas formas derivadas, retomando sob um olhar próprio os debates do derivacionismo e da regulação, bem como do autonomismo, e consequentemente a crítica do Estado e da forma partido.
Se por meio do debate teórico, ainda que no nível mais abstrato do pensamento político, o autor consegue elencar os principais problemas da ação e organização política, as remissões superficiais ao movimento zapatistas não são suficientes para trazer uma resposta positiva, a qual, mesmo defendendo acirradamente o momento da negatividade durante todo o livro, o autor é obrigado a resgatar ao final. Isso se agrava na medida em que, se sua análise explicita alguns dos limites das experiência socialistas do passado, a forma como as descarta a partir de divergências teóricas empobrece a investigação sobre o avanço que representaram a representam tanto na negação da lógica do Capital quanto na estruturação de potenciais novas formas organizativas que permitam sua superação.
Colocando como central a questão do rompimento do fluxo do fazer enquanto momento que estrutura a Բçã e o fetichismo, dando origem às estruturas de poder autonomizadas mediante a separação entre sujeito e objeto, o autor busca demonstrar como o trabalho reproduz tanto a estrutura positiva do fazer alienado separando o poder-fazer do poder sobre, quanto engendra no seio do fazer as formas de negatividade que possibilitam a negação da formas do Capital. Assim, privilegiando o momento da luta, o autor promove a crítica tanto da concepção do Capital enquanto sujeito, quanto das formas de atuação dentro de suas formas derivadas, retomando sob um olhar próprio os debates do derivacionismo e da regulação, bem como do autonomismo, e consequentemente a crítica do Estado e da forma partido.
Se por meio do debate teórico, ainda que no nível mais abstrato do pensamento político, o autor consegue elencar os principais problemas da ação e organização política, as remissões superficiais ao movimento zapatistas não são suficientes para trazer uma resposta positiva, a qual, mesmo defendendo acirradamente o momento da negatividade durante todo o livro, o autor é obrigado a resgatar ao final. Isso se agrava na medida em que, se sua análise explicita alguns dos limites das experiência socialistas do passado, a forma como as descarta a partir de divergências teóricas empobrece a investigação sobre o avanço que representaram a representam tanto na negação da lógica do Capital quanto na estruturação de potenciais novas formas organizativas que permitam sua superação.
November 11, 2023
An excellent exploration of Marxism with a focus on process, this is a foundational text for Open Marxism. There is a strong element of Hegelian Marxism here with the emphasis on process and change, rather than static structure. This is the side of Marxism that I find hugely interesting, it creates the space for truly innovative analysis of movement and change in society - something which moves us away from static and structural visions of how society works.
While this is a useful there is a clear anarchist strand to Holloway's thinking with his emphasis on escaping from state structures. There is also a strong element of voluntarism, changing the world is something we can choose to do because we oppose capitalism. All of this is a useful corrective to structuralist and economic-determinist approaches to Marxism be it's important I think to keep this balanced against an understanding of how (for example) the relations of production structure how we experience both class and society.
While this is a useful there is a clear anarchist strand to Holloway's thinking with his emphasis on escaping from state structures. There is also a strong element of voluntarism, changing the world is something we can choose to do because we oppose capitalism. All of this is a useful corrective to structuralist and economic-determinist approaches to Marxism be it's important I think to keep this balanced against an understanding of how (for example) the relations of production structure how we experience both class and society.
June 14, 2021
A deeply inspiring and moving treatment of the capacity for social change from an Open Marxist perspective.
Holloway hits on the constitution of social categories by struggle, the state as a social relation, the formation of the critical subject, crisis, and revolution from below. He deals with the fragility of capitalism and the ordinariness of the revolutionary.
I think he gets a little utopian at times, but the force of his negativity and his ability to open categories to show you a core of struggle more than makes up for it.
A word of warning, this book will not give you answers (it's not meant to), but it will demonstrate that we don't struggle in vain.
Holloway hits on the constitution of social categories by struggle, the state as a social relation, the formation of the critical subject, crisis, and revolution from below. He deals with the fragility of capitalism and the ordinariness of the revolutionary.
I think he gets a little utopian at times, but the force of his negativity and his ability to open categories to show you a core of struggle more than makes up for it.
A word of warning, this book will not give you answers (it's not meant to), but it will demonstrate that we don't struggle in vain.
June 13, 2017
Desde dónde viene el mensaje y para quién va. Un llamado a las resistencias imperantes, y resistencias entendidas como diferentes identidades que aportan a los procesos de transformación. John, cuestiona: "Se ha instrumentalizado la lucha para conquistar el poder, y no se logra abolir sino que más bien se reproduce desde la misma izquierda, ¿se salva así a la revolución del colapso de la ilusión del Estado y de la ilusión del poder?".
Y para los(as) que ostentan el poder dice: "Luchar por medio del Estado es verse implicado en el proceso activo de derrotarse a sí mismo".
Y para los(as) que ostentan el poder dice: "Luchar por medio del Estado es verse implicado en el proceso activo de derrotarse a sí mismo".
December 12, 2017
A very powerful and honest book.
The first three chapters are beautiful.
Though, couple of chapters are hard to read and decipher, the entire book is quite smooth and have arguments which are solid and humane.
Must read if you are in a phase where you are trying to go against capitalism, but are not able to convince yourself even though you have reasons.
This book is not the answer, it’s about the questions.
More importantly, this book presents beautifully how capitalism detaches us, the flaws of Identity, among many other things.
The first three chapters are beautiful.
Though, couple of chapters are hard to read and decipher, the entire book is quite smooth and have arguments which are solid and humane.
Must read if you are in a phase where you are trying to go against capitalism, but are not able to convince yourself even though you have reasons.
This book is not the answer, it’s about the questions.
More importantly, this book presents beautifully how capitalism detaches us, the flaws of Identity, among many other things.
September 11, 2024
Most of the book is pure philosophy, which I don't find useful or even fully understandable. I expected some practical info from Zapatistas, considering that is how I found this book, finding that the author is living there. There is some mention on Zapatistas, but short and vageue, not in some usable context. Last two chapters are more concise, with interesting perspective on changing from capitalism. I could recommend to only, or first reading them, then the rest of the book if you would like.
August 14, 2018
There are problems with the argument, it's repetitive at times - but it's energizing and I think still relevant. A good book to read if you've had trouble with Adorno and/or Lukacs, as Holloway spends a lot of time unpacking their ideas.
September 9, 2022
Very important book, but so much jargon that it was trying at many points. Kept going but took me half a year. Like his theories but hard to imagine how a class revolution like his which I would support actually looks like.
March 27, 2019
While this book could definitely be written to have greater appeal, in a starker style it would've gotten 4 *s had it not reached into my political compromises and made me promise to return one day
March 7, 2021
John Holloway is a zapatista at heart... if you want to change the world, and want to do it intelligently, this book may help x
January 3, 2022
Although some parts of this book are exceedingly difficult to understand, the payoff is worth it. This is essential reading for anyone upset at the state of capitalism.
January 18, 2022
كتاب تقيل جدا وقوي
July 11, 2022
Şimdilik 3 yıldız veriyorum. Çevirinin pek iyi olmadığı kanaatindeyim. Vaktim olursa daha sonra orjinalini okumayı düşünüyorum.
December 3, 2015
This is a book I have wanted to read for a long time. I am very interested in theories of social change. It is a tremendously important topic but one that is rarely discussed among the left and very much ignored in academia. John Holloway is one of those few authors that made a well-known contribution to the topic, but reading articles about and interviews with him, it always seemed Hollowayism is a perspective that I very much disagree with. That is why this book was on my to-read list for a long time: what better way to challenge your own perspective than to read something you think you very much disagree with. I still disagree with Holloway, but this is also one of the best books I have read in the last year.
It starts out brilliantly with the first two sentences, a paraphrasing of Goethe´s Faust: “In the beginning is the scream. We scream.� While you don’t realize it in the beginning, this already includes the main epistemological implications that are worked out in the rest of the book. The introduction is brilliant, it’s angry and not holding back: ‘we need no promise of a happy ending to justify our rejection of a world we feel to be wrong�. While the book is quite complicated, with many difficult concepts being introduced and discussed, it is also written as accessible as one possibly could at this level of theoretical sophistication and still very poetic at times.
full version:
It starts out brilliantly with the first two sentences, a paraphrasing of Goethe´s Faust: “In the beginning is the scream. We scream.� While you don’t realize it in the beginning, this already includes the main epistemological implications that are worked out in the rest of the book. The introduction is brilliant, it’s angry and not holding back: ‘we need no promise of a happy ending to justify our rejection of a world we feel to be wrong�. While the book is quite complicated, with many difficult concepts being introduced and discussed, it is also written as accessible as one possibly could at this level of theoretical sophistication and still very poetic at times.
full version:
Want to read
July 9, 2008I was suggested this book to read but, judging the book by the cover, instead left the loaned copy forgotten on my shelf and gathering dust for months. The day before I had to return it, I ended up reading the first chapter. I didn't get very far in, one because i had to return it and two because it left me bawling on the floor. This response makes me at least nod to the need to reassess what I think I feel about quite a few things�'change' being one of the more sticky ones.
'the scream' of refusal is the central concept halloway introduces, giving it sustained treatment as a profound and deeply felt dissonance throughout the book. more on this when/if i read the book.
The book can be found online in its entirety I think, and here is a dialogue between the author and his critics
'the scream' of refusal is the central concept halloway introduces, giving it sustained treatment as a profound and deeply felt dissonance throughout the book. more on this when/if i read the book.
The book can be found online in its entirety I think, and here is a dialogue between the author and his critics
February 15, 2013
3.5--i really need to read this again or read it in a group. Group discussion would have helped me on this. The beginning is great--i love the concept of the scream. the end is great and humorous--wonderful. I definitely want to read more Holloway. I like the idea of anti-power and really tried to understand how it exists in the world. And i think i understood it. I felt like in the middle was the hardest--philosophical argumentation coupled with the nuances of marxist thought, economics and theory--which also made some sense. I wasn't sure if I was just missing pieces or if the author was being redundant at times. Ok, so the middle is where i felt like i lost my path but by the end that path was re-established. wonderful. wanna read it with me? Would love to engage others over coffee about it.
December 6, 2008
only read a 4 page essay from it (the 2nd Chapter: Beyond the State?) and it changed my life
but yenno, giving only a 5 star positive review is unintelligent, uncritical, unnecessary, and frankly UN ALLOWED THESE DAYS.
(so i must read it all...)
but yenno, giving only a 5 star positive review is unintelligent, uncritical, unnecessary, and frankly UN ALLOWED THESE DAYS.
(so i must read it all...)
May 4, 2015
Holloway writes an entire book relying on a misunderstanding he has about Marxist theory, namely the supposed focus on gaining power by taking control of the state/overthrowing the state. His metaphoric allusions are at times painful to read and his diagnosis seems misguided.
Read
May 19, 2017Reviewed .
Read
August 17, 2014If the title of this book appeals to you the book as a whole will probably really speak to you. I liked this a lot. It was a lot more complicated than I thought it might be, in a good way.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.